From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: dborkman@redhat.com (Daniel Borkmann) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 00:30:19 +0200 Subject: [PATCH V3 2/3] ARM: net: bpf_jit: make code generation less dependent on struct sk_filter. In-Reply-To: References: <1366824429-26652-1-git-send-email-nschichan@freebox.fr> <1366824429-26652-3-git-send-email-nschichan@freebox.fr> <3592414.M8kQZLCXlW@wuerfel> <20130426122601.10ec05fcb4860df1b0a5b409@linux-foundation.org> <517AD9E2.2090704@redhat.com> <20130426130948.cbfd2f6256afc0e3ee7abeed@linux-foundation.org> <517AF926.3020302@redhat.com> Message-ID: <517AFFFB.9090201@redhat.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 04/27/2013 12:18 AM, Xi Wang wrote: > Thanks for CCing. One way to clean up this would be to refactor the > bpf jit interface as: > > bpf_func_t bpf_jit_compile(struct sock_filter *filter, unsigned int flen); > void bpf_jit_free(bpf_func_t bpf_func); > > Then both packet and seccomp filters can share the unified interface. > Also, we don't need seccomp_filter_get_len() and other helpers. > > Do you want me to rebase my patch against linux-next and see how that goes? Sure, whatever works for you. Not sure if it will still make it though. Also, as Eric already mentioned earlier, please do not top-post your mails! I think one reminder should be sufficient for that. ;-)